Insurance
Mar. 27, 2014
Reflecting on policy interpretations for 'additional insureds'
For years, courts have been grappling with when an insurer must provide a defense for an additional insured.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
According to Transport Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 222 Cal. 4th 1216, 1219 (2014), "for purposes of determining whether an additional insured to an excess and umbrella general liability insurance policy is entitled to a defense by the insurer, the reasonable expectations of the additional insured may be different than the reasonable expectations of the named insured." In remanding the case to the trial judge, that court therefore applied the "reasonable expectations" rule to an ad...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In